14:51:23 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #did
14:51:27 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/06/27-did-irc
14:51:41 <burn> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-did-wg/2024Jun/0022.html
14:51:46 <burn> Chair: Gabe Cohen
14:51:51 <burn> rrsagent, draft minutes
14:51:52 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/06/27-did-minutes.html burn
14:58:31 <Wip> Wip has joined #did
14:59:55 <Wip> scribe+
14:59:57 <decentralgabe> decentralgabe has joined #did
15:00:00 <decentralgabe> present+
15:00:05 <Wip> present+
15:00:06 <burn> present+
15:00:15 <ivan> present+
15:00:39 <TallTed> present+
15:01:18 <tminard> tminard has joined #did
15:01:41 <shigeya> present+
15:02:09 <burn> regrets+ pchampin
15:02:57 <manu> present+
15:03:13 <ChristopherA> ChristopherA has joined #DID
15:03:26 <ChristopherA> What is the URL to the zoom password?
15:03:48 <tminard> present+
15:03:55 <dlehn> present+
15:04:05 <dlongley> present+
15:04:07 <JennieM> JennieM has joined #did
15:04:12 <JoeAndrieu> JoeAndrieu has joined #did
15:04:14 <decentralgabe> https://www.w3.org/groups/wg/did/calendar/
15:04:14 <JennieM> present+
115:04:39 <mccown> mccown has joined #did
15:04:48 <KevinDean7> KevinDean7 has joined #did
15:05:10 <KevinDean7> KevinDean7 has left #did
15:05:11 <TallTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:05:13 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/06/27-did-minutes.html TallTed
15:05:28 <TallTed> RRSAgent, make logs public
15:05:38 <KevinDean> KevinDean has joined #did
15:05:39 <swcurran> swcurran has joined #did
15:05:41 <dlongley> q+ to intro
15:05:43 <KevinDean> present+
15:05:44 <mccown> present+
15:05:46 <burn> Topic: Intros
15:05:51 <swcurran> present+
15:05:53 <TallTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:05:55 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/06/27-did-minutes.html TallTed
15:06:01 <decentralgabe> ack dlongley
15:06:01 <Zakim> dlongley, you wanted to intro
15:06:15 <decentralgabe> q?
15:06:20 <Wip> dlongley: Wasn't on call last week. Dave Longley with DB. Co editors of DID and VC specs
15:06:43 <kimhd> kimhd has joined #did
15:06:51 <ChristopherA> present+
15:06:58 <kimhd> present+
15:06:59 <TallTed> i/scribe+/scribe: wip/
15:07:09 <TallTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:07:10 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/06/27-did-minutes.html TallTed
15:07:17 <Wip> kimhd: Do we want official response to EU issue?
15:07:19 <ivan> -> Issue on DI in the EU https://github.com/eu-digital-identity-wallet/eudi-doc-architecture-and-reference-framework/issues/205
15:07:19 <Wip> ... from the DID WG
15:07:39 <Wip> ... DIF wants to advocate for DIDs in EU ARF
15:07:56 <Wip> ... someone opened issue saying they shouldnt be there
15:08:11 <TallTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:08:12 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/06/27-did-minutes.html TallTed
15:08:19 <Wip> ... Not sure it is worth people chiming in on the thread. Think there is some confusion
15:08:22 <manu> q+
15:08:35 <Wip> ... would DID WG be interested in collab with DIF to advocate for DIDs in the EU ARF
15:08:36 <decentralgabe> ack manu
15:08:49 <Wip> manu: +1 good to collab with DIF on this
15:09:07 <ChristopherA> present+
15:09:16 <Wip> ... There are 11 statements that in issue 205 that are wrong or misleading at best
15:09:24 <kimhd> I try
15:09:39 <ChristopherA> q+
15:09:51 <Wip> ... Agree with Kim lets focus on the positives. Make a case for why EU should be considering DIDs
15:09:57 <KevinDean> KevinDean has joined #did
15:10:05 <Wip> ... going to respond as an individual to the issue
15:10:40 <Wip> ... Lets work with DIF agree with kimhd
15:10:54 <decentralgabe> ack ChristopherA
15:10:59 <Wip> decentralgabe: Encourage folks to respond directly or continue on mailing list
15:11:28 <Wip> * Agenda is linked in irc
15:11:38 <decentralgabe> https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/6893c0e2-41b5-4eaf-afc5-c0b46031594a/20240627T080000/
15:11:56 <decentralgabe> topic: TPAC
15:12:00 <decentralgabe> https://www.w3.org/2024/09/TPAC/
15:12:05 <Wip> decentralgabe: We have schedule to TPAC announced
15:12:12 <Wip> ... encourage folks to organise travel and accom
15:12:24 <decentralgabe> https://www.w3.org/calendar/tpac2024/
15:12:28 <Wip> ... DID WG to have meetings on monday and tuesday
15:12:43 <Wip> ... encourage folks to start thinking about topics and presentations
15:13:03 <Wip> ... Might be nice to have presentations on where DIDs are used in real world and how they might be used in the future
15:13:17 <burn> Topic: Processes
15:13:33 <Wip> decentralgabe: Want to start work on our work items
15:13:45 <decentralgabe> https://github.com/topics/did-wg
15:13:53 <ChristopherA> I'd love to see an agenda item of people seeking collaborators on various DID-WG items.
15:13:56 <Wip> ... Going to go over our processes, should be familiar. Work done via github issues
15:14:23 <Wip> ... We hope to use a consistent labelling system to organise issues
15:14:30 <Wip> ... Editors are empowered to manage labels
15:14:43 <Wip> ... 7 day merge window. P.Rs will be kept open for at least a week
15:15:02 <Wip> ... General practice to try find consensus on issues before opening a PR
15:15:13 <Wip> ... Open to special topic calls, if required
15:15:56 <Wip> burn: One comment, assume 7 day review policy for any resolution made on a call
15:16:16 <Wip> ... goal to get minutes out within a day of meetings so people who didn't attend can review these resolutions
15:16:52 <Wip> ... We are just getting started, for those who havent been around for the start of these things, just bear with us. Groups figure out there processes as they go
15:16:58 <Wip> ... if we miss anything please ping us
15:17:08 <burn> Topic: Work Item Kick-Off
15:17:35 <Wip> decentralgabe: Reached out to potential editors for work items
15:17:51 <Wip> ... for did core we have mana markus steve and dimitri
15:17:53 <ChristopherA> I am interested in Registry
15:18:01 <Wip> ... for did resolution we have manu markus and steve
15:18:28 <burn> s/mana/manu/
15:18:35 <Wip> ... looking for more editors if you are interested
15:19:01 <Wip> ... Looking to give time on the next call for editors to present on their work items and issues
15:19:12 <ChristopherA> I'd love to see a did-registry topic call scheduled.
15:19:13 <Wip> ... Want to give group OK to start raising issues and comments
15:19:29 <Wip> ... Note, no meeting next week. We will be meeting again in 2 weeks
15:19:42 <Wip> ... Please use the time to review existing issues etc
15:20:14 <Wip> ... For DID Core, we don't necessarily need FPW. But the chairs think it work following the full process
15:20:14 <ivan> q+
15:20:16 <ChristopherA> Where does Controller Documents fall?
15:20:19 <Wip> ... any comments or questions
15:20:21 <ChristopherA> q+
15:20:23 <decentralgabe> ack ivan
15:20:52 <Wip> ivan: On issue about DID core, if we go back to a working draft and start from there we would have to think about if this needs a new short name and url
15:20:58 <decentralgabe> did-core editors: Manu S, Markus S, Steve M, Dmitri Z; resolution: Markus S, STeve M, Dmitri Z
15:21:00 <burn> q+ to respond to ivan
15:21:04 <Wip> ... only thing visible on the same url would be a working draft
15:21:13 <Wip> ... This might have side effects for people viewing the spec
15:21:26 <burn> q-
15:21:31 <decentralgabe> ack ChristopherA
15:21:50 <Wip> ChristopherA: Wondering where the DID controller document falls in our pipeling?
15:22:19 <Wip> ... Also can we get a DID registy call scheduled. Been a while, I would like to know how things have evolved in this area?
15:22:36 <Wip> ... Lot of things to discuss, like keri and others that would be worth discussing
15:22:38 <burn> For reference, the charter: https://w3c.github.io/did-wg-charter/
15:22:50 <manu> q+ to note controller documents
15:23:02 <Wip> decentralgabe: I agree, a lot to discss with registries. Have some time allocated at the end of the call to start this
15:23:15 <markus_sabadello> markus_sabadello has joined #did
15:23:15 <ivan> -> VC Controller Document https://www.w3.org/TR/controller-document/
15:23:15 <decentralgabe> ack manu
15:23:15 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to note controller documents
15:23:25 <Wip> ... in terms of controller document, currently a work item in VCWG. Need to figure out how we want to tie these together
15:23:40 <markus_sabadello> present+
15:23:57 <Wip> manu: Expectation is that when editors present on DID core, we are going to have to figure out our relationship to the controller document work at VCWG
15:24:09 <Wip> ... expect rich discussion
15:24:14 <burn> Topic: DID Resolution Transfer
15:24:20 <ChristopherA> I'd like to see IETF consider controller documents as well.
15:24:30 <burn> https://github.com/w3c-ccg/did-resolution
15:24:44 <Wip> decentralgabe: DID resolution document is available as a source document from the CCG group
15:24:55 <Wip> ... no requirement that we use this as starting place. But is a sensible option
15:25:00 <markus_sabadello> present+
15:25:06 <Wip> ... CCG is open for us to begin the transfer
15:25:06 <markus_sabadello> q+
15:25:18 <Wip> ... Want to run a proposal to transfer this
15:25:20 <decentralgabe> ack markus_sabadello
15:25:33 <Wip> markus_sabadello: I support using DID resolution as a starting point
15:25:48 <ChristopherA> q+
15:25:50 <Wip> ... My question would be what do we do with the open issues currently in the ccg github
15:25:59 <manu> q+ to propose that issues are transferred over and cleaned up here.
15:26:16 <decentralgabe> ack ChristopherA
15:26:16 <Wip> decentralgabe: first thought is handle after migration
15:26:35 <Wip> ChristopherA: CCG was never authorized to list things that were more than just provisional
15:27:16 <burn> q+ to discuss deliverable differences between core and resolution
15:27:54 <decentralgabe> ack manu
15:27:54 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to propose that issues are transferred over and cleaned up here.
15:28:09 <burn> +1 manu
15:28:13 <Wip> manu: Speak in favour of transfering from CCG. Including all the issues
15:28:18 <JoeAndrieu> +1 to transferring and adopting as initial starting point, including issues
15:28:22 <dlongley> +1
15:28:23 <Wip> ... fairly easy life to pull these in
15:28:32 <Wip> s/life/lift
15:28:33 <decentralgabe> ack burn
15:28:34 <Zakim> burn, you wanted to discuss deliverable differences between core and resolution
15:28:59 <bigbluehat> bigbluehat has joined #did
15:29:00 <Wip> burn: quick reminder, 2 different document. DID resolution and DID core. Different changes permitted for these documents
15:29:30 <Wip> ... DID Core is in maintenance mode. Wheras resolution is a new working draft rec document
15:29:53 <bigbluehat> present+
15:29:53 <ChristopherA> +1 as a good draft.
15:30:04 <burn> https://github.com/w3c-ccg/did-resolution
15:30:16 <ChristopherA> +1
15:30:17 <decentralgabe> PROPOSAL: Adopt the DID Resolution repo from the CCG (https://github.com/w3c-ccg/did-resolution) to the W3C to be used as a starting point for the DID Resolution work item, including migrating all issues.
15:30:21 <ChristopherA> +1
15:30:22 <Wip> +1
15:30:32 <burn> +1
15:30:32 <JoeAndrieu> +1
15:30:32 <JennieM> +1
15:30:32 <manu> +1
15:30:32 <KevinDean> +1
15:30:32 <dlongley> +1
15:30:32 <mccown> +1
15:30:32 <markus_sabadello> +1
15:30:32 <ivan> +1
15:30:32 <shigeya> +1
15:30:32 <bigbluehat> +1
15:30:35 <swcurran> +1
15:30:53 <kimhd> +1
15:31:09 <swcurran> Apologizes for the question, but who is allowed to vote here?
15:31:21 <decentralgabe> RESOLVED: Adopt the DID Resolution repo from the CCG (https://github.com/w3c-ccg/did-resolution) to the W3C to be used as a starting point for the DID Resolution work item, including migrating all issues.
15:31:42 <ivan> q+
15:31:50 <decentralgabe> ack ivan
15:32:19 <decentralgabe> topic: Registries
15:32:31 <decentralgabe> https://www.w3.org/TR/did-spec-registries/
15:32:39 <decentralgabe> https://w3c.github.io/did-rubric/
15:32:44 <Wip> decentralgabe: We have 2 registries in scope. One the DID spec restrity, another for the rubric
15:33:07 <Wip> ... both are currently WG notes, we could migrate these to W3C registries
15:33:29 <Wip> ... few approaches. Start from scratch, migrate over, some hybrid
15:33:33 <ChristopherA> q+
15:33:52 <TallTed> s/to the W3C/to the WG/
15:33:52 <Wip> ... burn you noted that we should clearly freeze the current registries
15:33:54 <manu> q+ to note doing anything drastic this early on would need a discussion.
15:34:16 <Wip> burn: because we need to go to a different format for a registries. We need a starting point for that and can use existing as that.
15:34:30 <Wip> ... But i want to recommend that we freeze the existing as is
15:34:44 <Wip> decentralgabe: also need editors for these work items
15:34:48 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to ask about process
15:34:55 <decentralgabe> ack ChristopherA
15:35:29 <Wip> ChristopherA: 2 purposes for registry: 1. Make sure people don't stomp on each others namespace.
15:35:47 <Wip> ... We could continue to use CCG or others to continue to manage some provisional things with the registry
15:36:05 <Wip> ... only have WG able to deprecate for example. A higher level of registry.
15:36:24 <Wip> ... important we respect decentralization here though. Remain relatively easy to get provisional etc
15:36:34 <decentralgabe> ack JoeAndrieu
15:36:34 <Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to ask about process
15:36:39 <burn> It was premature for me to suggest freezing the existing ones.  I just meant that as a group we will need to create clear advice on how to interpret the original once we are in a world with a completely new document.
15:36:49 <Wip> JoeAndrieu: agree with ChristopherA, a lot of work to do to update the process
15:36:57 <Wip> ... lets figure this out. Going to take some time
15:37:06 <swcurran> q+ to Christopher's comments
15:37:13 <Wip> ... Want to find out where the process for w3c registry exists
15:37:30 <Wip> ... No process for transfering a registry currently documented. There is a process for starting a registry
15:37:52 <ivan> -> Registry track process in the process document https://www.w3.org/2023/Process-20230612/#registries
15:38:01 <Wip> ... The chairs think we need to follow process of creating a registry a new. But can use any starting point
15:38:06 <JoeAndrieu> https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#registries
15:38:10 <decentralgabe> https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#reg-def
15:38:43 <ivan> q+
15:38:49 <Wip> burn: Very important we follow a creation process, rather than a transfer process. When we start that process we need to be clear of the difference between these two things that will exist
15:39:02 <decentralgabe> ack manu
15:39:02 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to note doing anything drastic this early on would need a discussion.
15:39:08 <ivan> q-
15:39:17 <ChristopherA> I'd prefer not to grandfather CCG, instead, be a subset of CCG registry.
15:39:28 <Wip> manu: 23 open P.Rs for DID registrations. Could do something that upsets these people
15:39:42 <Wip> ... Currently 39 issues on the current registry that needs processing
15:39:47 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to say I think we could freeze after we have the new registry process ready.
15:39:59 <Wip> ... Need to think carefully how this transfer/freezing will work
15:40:08 <Wip> ... Want to make sure we send the right message
15:40:52 <ChristopherA> @manu, I appreciate that community!
15:40:54 <Wip> ... Been a while. We have a large set of volunteers able to do reviews of submissions. Think it is helpful that they do the initial reviews
15:41:17 <Wip> ... Agree with ChristopherA around questions of deprecation. Set a new bar for entry. E.g. need an implementation
15:41:26 <Wip> ... a lot to discuss before we have a registry process
15:41:35 <Wip> ... in the mean time lets continue processing existing entries
15:41:42 <burn> q+
15:42:05 <Wip> q+ to ask if we can freeze for new submissions while continue processing existing
15:42:20 <manu> q+ to preserve the repo and its history.
15:42:28 <Wip> decentralgabe: What should we do in terms of the same repo. keep same or move to a new one
15:42:38 <decentralgabe> ack swcurran
15:42:38 <Zakim> swcurran, you wanted to Christopher's comments
15:42:41 <Wip> ... Maybe open an issue on existing repo to conitnue discussion
15:43:03 <Wip> swcurran: similar comments to manu. The registry undermines DIDs with it being so long
15:43:05 <ChristopherA> q+
15:43:12 <Wip> ... need to define a process that will make this work
15:43:35 <Wip> ... suggest reorganising the list. Add additional requirements. Categorise the list
15:43:54 <ChristopherA> @swcurran — do you object to being too lists? a provisional vs next level?
15:44:00 <decentralgabe> ack JoeAndrieu
15:44:00 <Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to say I think we could freeze after we have the new registry process ready.
15:44:00 <Wip> ... try to eliminate the fluff from the registry
15:44:03 <ChristopherA> two lists. Sorry.
15:44:05 <manu> +1 to swcurran on "simple mechanical" proposals we should explore (and I support a number of them)
15:44:17 <Wip> JoeAndrieu: Think we can be more nuanced in freeze and handoff
15:44:27 <Wip> ... make a decision to adopt current registry and get them into a new process
15:44:49 <swcurran> +1 to Joe's statement
15:44:52 <Wip> ... new process should be up, before we freeze the existing. Should not have down time
15:44:57 <manu> scribe+
15:45:02 <decentralgabe> ack burn
15:45:36 <ivan> q+
15:45:40 <Wip> burn: Apologies for ever using the word freeze, but we are going to create something new. There will be two registries. The original and this new one we are creating
15:45:48 <Wip> ... need to be clear about the distinction
15:46:09 <decentralgabe> ack Wip
15:46:09 <Zakim> Wip, you wanted to ask if we can freeze for new submissions while continue processing existing
15:46:36 <manu> Wip: I was going to say, is there a way to "freeze" the registry... but prefer getting a new one set up first and stop people submitting new ones.
15:46:39 <decentralgabe> ack manu
15:46:39 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to preserve the repo and its history.
15:46:40 <burn> We will need a snapshot at a point in time to use as a starting point for the new doc.
15:47:00 <Wip> manu: I agree with what has been said. Concerns about loosing history
15:47:22 <Wip> ... doesn't feel like we need drastic changes, defo a -1 for having new thing loose history associated with it
15:47:35 <Wip> ... history is important to understand when DID methods where added, when changes were made. Etc
15:48:10 <swcurran> +1 to Manu.  I think we could just define a new process that floats viable methods -- separating them from the unmaintained.  But allowing the unmaintained to exist.
15:48:18 <Wip> ... Feels like we can just modify the process and hav a time in which we enact the change. One clear history
15:48:18 <manu> yep, that ^
15:48:19 <swcurran> I don't like the idea of a new name space.
15:48:25 <manu> Yes, agreed, swcurran
15:48:31 <Wip> decentralgabe: I see some risk in having 2 separate documents
15:48:33 <manu> I'm concerned about having two separate documents, ever.
15:48:34 <decentralgabe> ack ChristopherA
15:49:03 <Wip> ChristopherA: My proposal is simple. The WG continues to loan authority to the CCG but ask for a number of changes.
15:49:16 <Wip> ... clear statement about what it means to be provisional
15:49:37 <Wip> ... DID methods are clearly identified as provisional
15:49:39 <manu> yes, +1 ChristopherA, I think we can do that in the current document... and we can change the Respec document type as well -- I think we might be making this more complex than it needs to be :) (which will be a shock to no one in this group :P)
15:50:12 <decentralgabe> ack ivan
15:50:15 <Wip> ... Then the registry that we create as a WG, is a new list. With requirements that you have to have been a provisional in old registry
15:50:35 <burn> manu/swcurran, we may not have a choice on namespace because this will be a W3C technical report in that namespace
15:50:40 <Wip> ivan: registries at w3c is a new thing. Has to go through a long process including a vote through the AC
15:50:49 <Wip> ... like a rec but not IPR as far as I know
15:51:02 <Wip> ... this takes time, need to factor this in
15:51:24 <Wip> ... if we follow the model of ChristopherA, we can say everything in the existing registry is provisional
15:51:25 <manu> burn, hmm, right if we're forced to change away from this URL: https://www.w3.org/TR/did-spec-registries/ -- I'm more concerned about the content having continuity than the URL.
15:51:31 <swcurran> If the we change the name space, we deprecate/redirect the old to the new. I just don't like the idea of two name spaces.
15:51:33 <Wip> ... setting up a new registry is going to take time
15:51:45 <manu> q+
15:51:48 <decentralgabe> ack manu
15:52:12 <Wip> manu: Might be making this more complicated than necessary.
15:52:18 <Wip> ... Think this can be a simple process
15:52:40 <Wip> ... agree with swcurran, lets not have two namespaces pls
15:52:40 <ChristopherA> 1. provisional methods 2. validated methods 3. ???
15:52:46 <ivan> q+
15:52:53 <decentralgabe> ack ivan
15:53:05 <manu> q+
15:53:11 <Wip> ivan: What do we gain by turning what we have into an official W3C registry?
15:53:11 <decentralgabe> ack manu
15:53:25 <ivan> q+
15:53:56 <Wip> manu: We gain continuity. I don't see why we can;t apply the new rules to the existing registry we have
15:53:57 <ChristopherA> q+
15:54:16 <decentralgabe> ack ivan
15:54:23 <swcurran> +1 manu -- what we need to do is sort the list -- float "real" things to the top -- where the creator must meet the "real" bar.
15:54:23 <burn> manu, please review https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#registries .  Ivan's question was about why we want create an official W3C registry at all
15:54:54 <Wip> ivan: To put it another way, what do we loose by cleaning up the existing registry and NOT creating a W3C official registry
15:55:09 <decentralgabe> Zakim, please close the queue
15:55:09 <Zakim> ok, decentralgabe, the speaker queue is closed
15:55:53 <Wip> manu: I don't think we loose much. Desire for us to classify this as a W3C registry using the new process
15:55:56 <decentralgabe> ack ChristopherA
15:55:59 <burn> As a WG we can decide NOT to move to the new W3C Registry process.
15:56:20 <Wip> ChristopherA: I dont see any value in having an official registry. And there are some risks in this
15:56:30 <Wip> ... People may see this as W3C controlling this thing
15:56:53 <Wip> ... whole point of DIDs is to be decentralised. Are we sending wrong message
15:57:25 <markus_sabadello> q+
15:57:27 <Wip> ... What is point of registry. 1. So people don't stomp on other peoples names. 2. To manage expiration, people who drop off. 3. Maybe some level of validation, code exists. It is real.
15:58:01 <Wip> ... Got a new git related proposal, there is an old git namespace registerd.. But it isn;t really being developed
15:58:08 <Wip> ... How do we handle methods going "stale"
15:58:21 <burn> s/registerd/registered/
15:58:27 <burn> s/isn;t/isn't/
15:59:25 <decentralgabe> https://github.com/w3c/did-spec-registries/issues/565
15:59:30 <Wip> markus_sabadello: Agree with ChristopherA, however the WG has to find ways to demonstrate interop. Having an official registry may help with that
15:59:44 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:59:46 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/06/27-did-minutes.html ivan
15:59:52 <TallTed> we should strive to start on time (at top of the hour, x:00), and end at 5-to-the-hour (x:55)
15:59:55 <Wip> decentralgabe: Thanks for discussion. Speak in 2 weeks.
15:59:57 <ChristopherA> @markus_sabadello maybe a separate registry of methods that have been validated to work with the did-resolver?
16:00:12 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:00:13 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/06/27-did-minutes.html ivan
16:02:46 <ivan> rrsagent, bye
16:02:46 <RRSAgent> I see no action items